JMA-Australia

From the article, it appears that the soldiers are charged under Australian domestic civil law - it is not clear whether the court is civilian or military.

Professor Donald Rothwell, deputy director of the Australian Centre for Military Law and Justice, says only the worst abuses were prosecuted during the Vietnam War.

But he says that is changing significantly, especially since Australia became a party to the International Criminal Court.

"Australia prosecutes defence members who may have breached the laws of armed conflict and if not, those personnel should be handed over to the ICC for prosecution," he said.

"As a result of that we've had a significant beefing up of Australian domestic law - domestic criminal law - which applies to military personnel in places like Afghanistan."
This is similar to the German system discussed re: the Afghan gas tanker incident. Basically, applying Rule of Law and not Laws of War.

-------------------
MAL and JMA

Agree that duty to assist wounded hinges on whether the engagement has ended or not - and what is happening in the engagement. The Semrau engagement seems to have been in the pursuit stage.

The Canadian guru John Thompson stated that pursuit should have come to a complete halt. That was my point in titling the post "mercy killing" or "mission saving".

I'd say bypass the wounded guy and continue the pursuit because those you are pursuing (if not caught) will come back to fight and kill another day. If you have additional assets allowing the wounded to be cared for then you do so.

As to the rule says:

Rule 109. Whenever circumstances permit, and particularly after an engagement, each party to the conflict must, without delay, take all possible measures to search for, collect and evacuate the wounded, sick and shipwrecked without adverse distinction.
In both the Semrau case and JMA's example, the "circumstances did not permit" and it was not "after the engagement".

Regards

Mike